Brodhead Pietenpol Association

Original Posted By: "Chris Rusch"
finally got started and built one half of my work table. Why is I can figure inmy head how many 2x4's I will need , then find out I need twice as many!Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: ###Second Flight####

Original Posted By: Jack
The second flight went much smoother and incident free....I adjusted the mixturecontrol to about midway towards lean and wired it in place....did several staticpulls and it sounded really good and smooth. We took off and flew aroundthe patch for about 15 min problem free and very smooth running.!!! So we arereal close to getting the bugs worked out.I am looking for advice as far as amount of force needed to keep the nose up. Ithink I may have made a mistake by making the center lift struts equal lengthwith the riblett airfoil hence not giving me enough incidence. Has anyone elsehave a nose heavy situation and how did you fix it? Anyone put shims in thehorizontal stabilizer ?--------NX321LRON THE FINAL PUSH!!Mitsubishi PoweredRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ###Second Flight####

Original Posted By: "Chris Rusch"
Chris, we? Congratulations on some outstanding work!Sent from my iPadJack TextorOn Oct 2, 2013, at 7:38 PM, "Chris Rusch" wrote:> > The second flight went much smoother and incident free....I adjusted the mixturecontrol to about midway towards lean and wired it in place....did severalstatic pulls and it sounded really good and smooth. We took off and flew aroundthe patch for about 15 min problem free and very smooth running.!!! So we arereal close to getting the bugs worked out.> I am looking for advice as far as amount of force needed to keep the nose up.I think I may have made a mistake by making the center lift struts equal lengthwith the riblett airfoil hence not giving me enough incidence. Has anyone elsehave a nose heavy situation and how did you fix it? Anyone put shims in thehorizontal stabilizer ?> > --------> NX321LR> ON THE FINAL PUSH!!> Mitsubishi Powered> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 726#409726> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: ###Second Flight####

Original Posted By: "taildrags"
"We"meaning me on the ground watching my test pilot having all the fun....it'sa joint effort!--------NX321LRON THE FINAL PUSH!!Mitsubishi PoweredRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: ###Second Flight####

Original Posted By: Rick Holland
Chris; first of all, you need to change your signature line. It still says "OnThe Final Push". Second, the need to hold back stick is unusual in these airplanes...usually they are tail heavy. Most of the posts that you'll find inthe archives talk about *adding* incidence to the horizontal stabilizer, not *decreasing*incidence. You're breaking new ground here with the Riblett airfoiland equal-length cabanes.Ideally, of course, you would increase the wing incidence by lengthening the frontcabanes a smidgen. However, that would probably be a major effort and wouldprobably also involve the lift struts, unless you have threaded fork ends onthem that would permit you to lengthen the front struts to accommodate morewing incidence. You could probably play with the horizontal tail, but I don'tthink it will be too easy at this point either. You could add more nose-up biasingtrim on the elevator, but that will increase drag and won't address thereal issue, which sounds like not enough wing incidence. I'll have to go backto look at P.F. Beck's testing of the Riblett to see what he says about howthey set it.--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 20:56:23 -0600Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ###Second Flight####

Original Posted By: Rick Holland
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: ###Second Flight####

Original Posted By: "AircamperN11MS"
FYI The CG is at 15.6 from leading edge for these flights--------NX321LRNow test flying!!Mitsubishi PoweredRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: ###Second Flight####

Original Posted By: "Chris Rusch"
Chris,First off, Congats on the second flight. Secondly, It sounds like you are describinga nose heavy airplane. I looked again at the video's you posted. Theplane looks to be flying in a level attitude. It also looks like your wing ismoved back a little. I would perform another W&B to determine exactly whereit is with the pilot who is currently flying it. Then recalculate the W&B withyou as pilot. The man fling it right now doesn't look to be very big. A twentypound heavier pilot would probably correct the problem you are describing.Try putting rocks in the pilots pockets without him looking and see if he comesback and tells you that the plane is fine now. Happy Landings,--------Scott LiefeldFlying N11MS since March 1972Steel TubeC-85-12Wire WheelsBrodhead in 1996Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: ###Second Flight####

Original Posted By: "Pieti Lowell"
Congratulations Chris. Looks and sounds great. The sputtering just adds a 'periodrealism' hahaha Seriously though I'm glad it was nothing more than that.It is nerve wracking flying something that doesn't have a bunch of hours behindit to give you some reassurance. I just completed my first couple of hoursafter a total engine rebuild, and watching your video gave me the willies fora second time.Many happy hours of flying to you.JoeRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: ###Second Flight####

Original Posted By: "Chris Rusch"
Chris:How was the air speed ? When I add power the stick pressure changes, I tried equallengths on cabanes and ended up to be universal , attached a bungee from theseat to the stick with a slide and lock. problem solved. She still flies wellat 78 MPH. Or 68 MPH.CongratulationsPieti LowellRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: ###Second Flight####

Original Posted By: "taildrags"
Since you are building an RC version of your Piet - I thought you might get a kickout of my RC Piet. The RC Piet is from Stevens Aero and was built by PaulStamison. Mr. Jin Woo provided the decals. The front and rear cockpit instrumentsin the model match the ones in my Piet--------Jim McWhorterN687MB (New Owner)Culpeper, VA KCJRRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/rc_m ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: ###Second Flight####

Original Posted By: John Ackerman
Chris;With the standard CG envelope being 15"-20" aft of wing leading edge, flying itwith the CG at 15.6" aft is definitely going to be nose heavy. My airplane hasa 16 gallon fuel tank in the nose and when I'm flying solo with full fuel,I have to hold some back stick too. Where is the fuel tank in Two One Lima Romeo?If it's in the nose and you're doing test flights with full fuel, you mighttry draining off half the tank and flying it again. And unless it is requiringconsiderable back stick to hold it straight & level, or you have a wingcentersection fuel tank, it doesn't sound like you have any big adjustments tomake.--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________

Original Posted By: "taildrags"
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Higher Useful LoadHey everyone!I've been a lurker on this mailing list for a long time, but haven't reallysaid much. I'm considering building a Pietenpol and the only thing holdingme back at this point is the useful load. It seems the average useful loadis about 450 lbs. I'd REALLY like to get 500-550 useful. I'll be using anO-200 to power mine. Has anyone designed a slightly larger wing orsome-such to allow for a higher useful load?Thanks!John________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Higher Useful Load

Original Posted By: "womenfly2"
John;It's not just a matter of getting enough lift and thrust to get the airplane tofly at a higher gross weight. The design loading for the wing spars, wing attachfittings and bolts, lift struts, strut attachment fittings and bolts, landinggear, and other things are affected by an increase in weight. If you thinkabout it, the Normal Category load limit is +3.8G so if you increase the grossweight by 100 lbs, the stresses have to be analyzed for 3.8 times that (actually,1.9 times that for each wing since there are 2 wings). Not that it can'tbe done, but you've got to look at the whole picture and not just adding morewing area or engine thrust to get the additional weight off the ground.This topic has come up fairly often, given that most people today are a littlelarger in weight and stature than Mr. Pietenpol was. In my case it's not a factorsince I'm 5'-9" and weigh about 152 in summer clothes, but I think I'm theexception. In fact, my airplane (empty weight 633) is right at gross with fullfuel and two FAA-standard people aboard (175 lbs apiece). I haven't hearda lot of excitement on this list about structurally and aerodynamically analyzingthe Air Camper and re-engineering it for a higher gross weight. It is whatit is.--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Higher Useful Load

Original Posted By: "A Future Pilot"
> Not that it can't be done, but you've got to look at the whole picture and notjust adding more wing area or engine thrust to get the additional weight offthe ground. Your correct here and very good advise. Unfortunately people do what you are sayingwithout any total engineering being looked at. Lots of Piet's flying aroundthat way with increased loads on the total airframe lowering the safety factor,without know what it is. I would assume some are under the 3.8G's limits..... and the limits are there for a reason.Build a Piet as a Piet. If you what it to do something different, look for an otherdesign.--------Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Higher Useful Load

Original Posted By: "jarheadpilot82"
OK, so redesigning it is out...but is the published useful load accurate for anO-200? About what useful load can I expect, since I'm assuming I'll have morethan what I'd have with a Model A. Doing some searching through this list, I'veseen people talk about 1250 or so gross with an O-200. Is that realistic?Thanks!Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Higher Useful Load

Original Posted By: Steve Emo
John,I think that you are looking at this backwards. You seem to be asking, "If I addan O-200, how much more can I add?" I think the better question is, "My aircraftcan be comfortably be registered and operated with a gross weight of X. Whatare the best practices that I can use to build light as safely possible inorder to leave me as much useful load as possible."The design weight is set for all the reasons previously discussed. So instead ofasking how much you can add, figure out what your empty weight will be, thenyour useful load is left. It seems to me that often people like the Pietenpol, but want to change it to door be X, Y, or Z on their desires list. There are many great designs out there,and if the Piet cannot quite give you what you want, then keep looking. Youwill be much happier in the end.My $.02--------Semper Fi,Terry HandAthens, GARead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Higher Useful Load

Original Posted By: Michael Weston
58tl has an O200 and has a gross weight of 1320. Yes it does get off the ground,and yes carrying a little more speed on approach feels fine. Steve> On Oct 4, 2013, at 3:45 PM, "A Future Pilot" wrote:> > > OK, so redesigning it is out...but is the published useful load accurate foran O-200? About what useful load can I expect, since I'm assuming I'll have morethan what I'd have with a Model A. Doing some searching through this list,I've seen people talk about 1250 or so gross with an O-200. Is that realistic?> > Thanks!> > > > > Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... 864#409864> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________

Original Posted By: "A Future Pilot"
hi guys & gals, i looked at the video and i noticed that the elevator did not havethe usual 3 to 4 degree droop typical of piets in flight, in fact it was pointedup 2 or 3 degrees. so going back and looking at my notes it shows thatthe riblet airfoil calls for a 1" longer cabane in front. however, the riblethas the same 2 degree angle of incidence in relation to the top longeron as thestandard piet airfoil.on account of the fact that the riblet front spar is 1inch lower than the rear in relation to the chord line. so, chris' piet has 1degree less than called for in the plans. ergo, all things being more or lessequal from the standpoint of the air blowing over the plane the horizontal stabilizeris one degree off in relation to the wing. the riblet airfoil has almostthe same pitching moment as the piet airfoil so it should trim up the same.anywaythats my 5 cents.________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Higher Useful Load

Original Posted By: "jarheadpilot82"
Thanks everyone!I think my initial question wasn't really what I meant to be asking. The way Ishould have worded it is "What is the highest gross weight that the pietenpolcan safely operate with when using an O-200 engine. Also, are there any wing orother section redesigns that would be beneficial."So, with that in mind, would y'all say that an empty weight of around 750 (or hopefullyless) is reasonable, and a gross weight of about 1250 is safe with anO-200? I plan on building as light as possible (including using a steel tubefuselage), but other than just building light, there aren't any modificationsto the original design that are recommended? (I have looked at Keri-Anne's modifications.I think I may go with the no-gap ailerons and steerable tail wheel.Have any of you had experience with those?)Thanks again everyone!Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Higher Useful Load

Original Posted By: "jarheadpilot82"
John,Leave off the "with an O-200" and your question is more accurate, in my opinion.The question should be "what is the max gross weight allowed, and what is areasonable empty weight." period.Whether or not it is an O-200, a Rotec, am A-65, a Model T or any other engineis more a factor in Weight and Balance computations. Too heavy an engine and isplacement is going to affect the CG and thus the flyability of your final producteven if your airplane is within a weight range.$.02 more.--------Semper Fi,Terry HandAthens, GARead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Higher Useful Load

Original Posted By: "taildrags"
John,Leave off the "with an O-200" and your question is more accurate, in my opinion.The question should be "what is the max gross weight allowed, and what is areasonable empty weight." period.Whether or not it is an O-200, a Rotec, am A-65, a Model T or any other engineis more a factor in Weight and Balance computations. Too heavy an engine and isplacement is going to affect the CG and thus the flyability of your final producteven if your airplane is within a weight range.$.02 more.--------Semper Fi,Terry HandAthens, GARead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Higher Useful Load

Original Posted By: "Chris Rusch"
Jim; I have thought about creating that W&B envelope diagram for my airplane. You must realize, though, that unlike certified aircraft which are all alike,experimentals are all different and one envelope diagram will not serve for all.On the matter of aux tanks, you might consider a temporary setup rather than afixed aux tank and piping, which would permanently add to your empty weight. There are many different configurations of blow-molded plastic fuel tanks forboats (for example), and you could secure one in the front cockpit for longerflights or extra margin. The rubber tubing with a squeeze bulb could be usedto hand-transfer fuel from the aux tank up to the main tank. Most of those moldedfuel tanks for boats hold enough to add about an hour of flight time. Justa thought.--------Oscar ZunigaMedford, ORAir Camper NX41CC "Scout"A75 powerRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: ###Second Flight####

Original Posted By: "Chris Rusch"
Hello,I'd first like to introduce myself. My name is John Gillis and I've built andcurrently fly a Sonex Waiex. I'm onto my second airplane and decided on a Pietenpolafter sitting in a friends. I purchased the plans and ordered the EAAbooks recommended by pietenpols.org. I know how to assemble a sheet metal planeand fabricate metal parts, but wood and fabric will be a new skill set forme.I have a couple of questions to start with.Are the kit bundles from Aircraft Spruce the best way to get started?Is shipping of the long spruce pieces expensive?Can you locally source any of the spruce or plywood in say Denver?I would like to put a Rotec R2800 on the nose, alternately an O235 or Corvair.What fuselage length do you choose?Thanks in advance and I apologize if this gets rehashed too often. I couldn'tfind any info on this using the search function or in the FAQ.Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: ###Second Flight####

Original Posted By: "Chris Rusch"
We'll folks, had the Piet up for its third flight a few days ago about 1/2 hour,and my rear stick pressure is still there and really heavy. In order to fixthis condition, last fall I shimmed up the rear of the elevator a 1/4" and itdid absolutely nothing. After reading some riblett posts I think I need to makethe cabanes 11/16 different to get the same 2 deg angle of incedence, to matchthe fc10 airfoil. Before I tear it apart, I am going to have my test pilotfly with 50# worth of ballast with him, that would equal my 200# and see if I'mjust on the front edge of the weight and balance. My trim don't work either.I was really hoping to be flying myself by this time, but I don't think it'sgonna happen for awhile. On a positive note, the engine ran great! Open for any input....--------NX321LRNow test flying!!Mitsubishi PoweredRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: ###Second Flight####

Original Posted By: "Boatright, Jeffrey"
Current pic--------NX321LRNow test flying!!Mitsubishi PoweredRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/imag ... __________

Original Posted By: "aerocarjake"
Hi Chris,Sorry to hear of these difficulties. I went through similar, includingaltering the elevator angle and messing about with trim. Check your weightand balance carefully. My problem turned out to be the CG was too far aft.I ended up moving the wing back 3 inches. Seemed to help most of theproblems.Jeff--On 6/9/14, 9:25 PM, "Chris Rusch" wrote:>>>We'll folks, had the Piet up for its third flight a few days ago about>1/2 hour, and my rear stick pressure is still there and really heavy. In>order to fix this condition, last fall I shimmed up the rear of the>elevator a 1/4" and it did absolutely nothing. After reading some riblett>posts I think I need to make the cabanes 11/16 different to get the same>2 deg angle of incedence, to match the fc10 airfoil. Before I tear it>apart, I am going to have my test pilot fly with 50# worth of ballast>with him, that would equal my 200# and see if I'm just on the front edge>of the weight and balance. My trim don't work either. I was really hoping>to be flying myself by this time, but I don't think it's gonna happen for>awhile. On a positive note, the engine ran great!>Open for any input....>>-------->NX321LR>Now test flying!!>Mitsubishi Powered>>>Read this topic online here:>>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use ofthe intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privilegedinformation. If the reader of this message is not the intendedrecipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distributionor copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictlyprohibited.If you have received this message in error, please contactthe sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of theoriginal message (including attachments).________________________________________________________________________________Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: ###Second Flight####

Original Posted By: "GNflyer"
Congrats on your flying... Thanks for the picture and video....--------Jake Schultz - curator,Newport Way Air Museum (OK, it's just my home)Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: ###Second Flight####

Original Posted By: Steven Dortch
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: ###Second Flight####

Original Posted By: "Chris Rusch"
Some updates for you :DWelcome to Vasek's Aircraft Industries --------My production of WW1 propellers, trophies and constructions:Read this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ttachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/1405 ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: ###Second Flight####

Original Posted By: "Chris Rusch"
Yes I shimmed the rear....and it did screw up the rudder alignment. I had to spaceout the hinges to get it all lined back up. Never thought of twisting theelevator...could give that a try pretty easily. Thanks!Don Emch wrote:> Hi Chris,> > I would think that shimming the horizontal stabilizer might change your fin/rudder/tailpost hinge line... to the point of not fitting or causing a bind. I would really consider twisting the horizontal stabilizer. You could twist theleading edge down with the wires. It would probably surprise you how muchyou could twist it and how much of an effect it might have. That stabilizer hasa lot of area. I really think Mr. Pietenpol designed the stabilizer like hedid so that he could tweak it to adjust the trim as needed. Mr. Pietenpol'ssimple genius strikes again!> > Don Emch> NX899DE--------NX321LRNow test flying!!Mitsubishi PoweredRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ___Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: ###Second Flight####

Original Posted By: "Greg Cardinal"
Im using the bigger size strut in the front and the smaller in the rear. the liftstruts are all the smaller size. I think they only offer those two sizes[quote="speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.n"]Hello Chris. Sweet looking plane...very nice.Could you please tell me what size/type aluminum wing struts you are using?I see that it appears you used a bolt through the wing struts to attach the jurystruts. I am curious as to what size strut and what size bolt you are using.Thank you. If God is your co-pilot...switch seats. Mike Perez Karetaker Aero STILL Building...> --------NX321LRNow test flying!!Mitsubishi PoweredRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... __________

Original Posted By: "Chris Rusch"
As Don Emch suggested, adjust the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer by changing the tension on the tail bracing cables.This won't correct a CG issue so ensure your Weight & Balance is correct.Also, ensure your elevators are rigged so they are even with each other. NX18235 had a small variance with the elevator rigging resulting in a pronounced nose-heaviness.Greg CardinalMinneapolis----- Original Message -----

Original Posted By: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Chris,You have a beautiful plane!! I, too, adjusted my horizontal as Greg describes...flies hands off, now (forabout 10 seconds!!!)Gary BootheNX308MB-----Original Message-----

Original Posted By: Michael Perez
Im pretty sure I drilled a 1/4" hole thru the wing struts and used an eye clevisto mount the jury struts. then all of the jury struts were bolted together using-3 hardware[quote="speedbrake(at)sbcglobal.n"]Thanks Chris. Do you recall what size bolt youused in the wing struts to attach the jury struts? Do you have any picturesof the attachment? I ask because I will be fabricating/attaching my jury strutsand am looking for ideas. (I am using aluminum wing struts.)If God is your co-pilot...switch seats. Mike Perez Karetaker Aero STILL Building...> --------NX321LRNow test flying!!Mitsubishi PoweredRead this topic online here:http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ... ______Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 07:31:46 -0700 (PDT)